JUDGMENT : SANDEEP SHARMA, J. 1. By way of instant Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner-workman (hereinafter referred to as “workman”) has laid challenge to Award dated 24.6.2017 passed by the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala (HP) (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) in Ref No. 522/2016, whereby learned Tribunal awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the workman in lieu of the back wages, seniority, past service benefits as well as other consequential service benefits. 2. Precisely the facts as emerge from the record are that the Appropriate Government made following reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) to the Tribunal: “Whether alleged termination of services of Shri Arun Kumar S/o Shri Dharam Singh R/o V.P.O. Tanihar, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. during 10/2001 by the Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division, Dharampur, District Mandi, H.P. without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as alleged by workman, is legal and justified; whereas he has raised the industrial dispute vide demand notice dated 21/02/2015 after lapse of 14 years. If not, keeping in view of working period of 204 and 212 days during years 2000 and 2001 and delay of more than 14 years in raising the industrial dispute, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above ex-worker is entitled to from the above employer/ management?” 3. The workman claimed before learned Tribunal that he was engaged by the authorities on daily wage basis on Muster Roll in June, 2000. He continued to work till October, 2001, as such, he had completed 240 days. The workman alleged that his services were unlawfully terminated by the respondents verbally with effect from October, 2001 without issuing one month's notice and retrenchment compensation, as envisaged under Section 25F of the Act. The workman claimed before learned Tribunal that since the respondents violated provisions of Section 25 of the Act, his oral termination deserves to be set aside. While placing on record factum with regard to retention of his juniors at the time of his retrenchment, workman also alleged that the principle of ‘last come, first go’ was also not followed by the respondents. While placing on record factum with regard to retention of his juniors at the time of his retrenchment, workman also alleged that the principle of ‘last come, first go’ was also not followed by the respondents. He further claimed that after his termination, respondents engaged many persons, who subsequently worked as daily wage Beldars but at no point in time, opportunity, if any, was ever afforded to him for re-employment, as such, action of the respondents, which is in sheer violation of the provisions contained under Section 25H of the Act, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, respondents by way of a written reply to the aforesaid claim put forth by the workman, refuted the same on the ground of maintainability as well as delay and laches. Though the respondents admitted the factum with regard to workman's engagement in the respondent-Department as a Daily Wager with effect from June 2000, but claimed that he abandoned the job in October, 2001, as such, there was no obligation on their part to comply with the provisions contained under Section 25 of the Act. Respondents prayed for dismissal of the claim of the workman on the ground of delay and laches and claimed before learned Tribunal that since demand notice was issued after a considerable delay of fourteen years of the alleged retrenchment, no relief, if any, can be granted to the workman. 5. Learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by respective parties arrived at a conclusion that the services of the workman were illegally terminated without notice but having taken note of the fact that the workman raised dispute after fourteen years of his alleged retrenchment, awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the workman in lieu of back wages, seniority, past service benefits as well as consequential service benefits. In the aforesaid background, the workman has approached this Court in the instant proceedings praying for his reinstatement with full back wages, seniority and continuity in service. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 7. After a close scrutiny of the material available on record vis-a-vis reasoning assigned by learned Tribunal, while awarding compensation to the workman in lieu of back wages, seniority and past service benefits, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention raised by Mr. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 7. After a close scrutiny of the material available on record vis-a-vis reasoning assigned by learned Tribunal, while awarding compensation to the workman in lieu of back wages, seniority and past service benefits, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention raised by Mr. Rahul Mahajan, learned counsel for the workman that since the workman had successfully proved on record that his services were illegally terminated in violation of Section 25F of the Act, learned Tribunal could not deny reinstatement on account of delay in raising the demand notice, especially in view of judgment dated 20.12.2012, rendered by the Writ Court in CWP No. 8315 of 2012. Though, a careful perusal of aforesaid judgment reveals that this Court had directed the Labour Commissioner to make a reference to the Tribunal despite there being considerable delay of ten years, but while doing so, this Court definitely did not preclude/bar the respondents from raising the question with regard to delay in the proceedings to be held before the Tribunal. In the aforesaid Writ Petition, the workman had laid challenge to the action of the Labour Commissioner in not making reference and this Court having taken note of the explanation rendered on record by the workman, had only directed the Labour Commissioner to make reference to the Labour Court. 8. A careful perusal of the specific reference made under Section 10(1) of the Act, which has been taken note herein above, itself reveals that the question with regard to delay and laches was required to be decided by the Tribunal while considering the claim of the workman. It is not in dispute that at no point in time, dispute, if any, was ever raised by the workman qua specific reference made to the Labour Court by the Appropriate Government, rather, the workman by way of filing claim, made an attempt to justify the delay caused in making the reference, as such, there appears to be no force in the argument of Mr. Rahul Mahajan, learned counsel for the workman that the learned Tribunal could not have gone into the question of delay and laches, while ascertaining the claim of the workman. Rahul Mahajan, learned counsel for the workman that the learned Tribunal could not have gone into the question of delay and laches, while ascertaining the claim of the workman. The Apex Court in Prabhakar vs. Sericulture Department, (2015) 15 SCC 1 , while specifically dealing with the question of delay in raising the dispute by the workman under the Act ibid, has held that since there is no period of limitation prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, for raising dispute but if such a dispute is raised after a long period, it is to be seen whether such a dispute still exists. In the aforesaid background, Apex Court has held that notwithstanding the fact that the law of limitation does not apply, it is to be shown by the workman that there is a dispute in praesenti and, for that purpose, he has to demonstrate that even if considerable period has elapsed and there are laches and delays, such delay has not resulted into making such dispute seize to exist. Apex Court has further held that if because of such a delay, dispute no longer remains alive and is to be treated as ‘dead’ then it would be non-existent dispute, which cannot be referred. In the aforesaid judgment, Apex Court concluded that the words “at any time” used in Section 10(1) do not admit of any limitation in making an order of reference and laws of limitation are not applicable to the proceedings under the Act ibid. However, the policy of industrial adjudication is that very stale claims should not be generally encouraged or allowed unless there is a satisfactory explanation for the delay. By way of aforesaid judgment, Apex Court ordered that if a Court finds that the dispute still exists though raised belatedly, it is always permissible for the Court to take the aspect of delay into consideration and mould the relief. In such cases, it is open for the Court to either grant reinstatement with back wages or lesser back wages or grant compensation instead of reinstatement. Reliance in this regard is also placed upon following judgments rendered by Apex Court, viz. Rajasthan State Agriculture Mktg. Board vs. Mohan Lal, (2013) 14 SCC 543 , U.P. SRTC vs. Ram Singh, (2008) 17 SCC 627 , Dharappa vs. Bijapur Coop. Reliance in this regard is also placed upon following judgments rendered by Apex Court, viz. Rajasthan State Agriculture Mktg. Board vs. Mohan Lal, (2013) 14 SCC 543 , U.P. SRTC vs. Ram Singh, (2008) 17 SCC 627 , Dharappa vs. Bijapur Coop. Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd. (2007) 9 SCC 109 , Assistant Engineer, CAD vs. Dhan Kunwar, (2006) 5 SCC 481 and Mahavir vs. Union of India, (2018) 3 SCC 588 . Similar view has been taken by this Court in Girja Nand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, CWP No. 93 of 2019 decided on 13.3.2019, Smt. Sumfali Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, CWP No. 2861 of 2018 decided on 2.4.2019 and The Additional Chief Secretary (PW) and Others vs. Shri Ram Gopal, LPA No. 27 of 2019 decided on 3.4.2019. The long and short of the matter is very well expressed by the maxim, vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt, that is to say, the law assists those who are vigilant with their rights, and not those that sleep thereupon. 9. Though, in the case at hand, impugned Award itself reveals that the respondents failed to prove abandonment of job by the workman but the Man Days chart, Exhibit RW1/B clearly reveals that the workman had worked for 204 days in 2000 and for 212 days in 2001. Thus, the workman had actually worked for 416 days till the date of his alleged termination. Similarly, the evidence available on record reveals that after the termination of the workman, fresh hands were engaged by the respondents despite the petitioner being available for the job, but, as has been taken note herein above, workman issued demand notice after around fourteen years of the alleged retrenchment, by which time, much water had flown under the bridge, as such, learned Tribunal, while keeping in view all relevant factors including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of appointment, length of service, grounds on which termination is set aside and delay in raising the dispute, proceeded to award compensation in lieu of back wages, seniority and past service benefits. Thus, this court sees no reason to interfere with the aforesaid findings, which otherwise appear to be reasonable and justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Learned counsel for the workman, while relying upon a judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sh. Thus, this court sees no reason to interfere with the aforesaid findings, which otherwise appear to be reasonable and justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Learned counsel for the workman, while relying upon a judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sh. Daulat Ram vs. The Executive Engineer, HPPWD, CWP No. 1887 of 2017 and other connected matters, decided on 11th December, 2017, argued that it has been held by this Court that the reinstatement cannot be denied merely on the ground of delay. However, this Court is not in agreement with learned counsel for the workman for the reason that Division Bench of this Court, while deciding CWP No. 447 of 2019, decided on 9.4.2019, held that probably binding judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court have not been considered in the above mentioned case by Coordinate Bench of this Court. Division Bench further held that judgment in Daulat Ram (supra) is not based upon ratio decidendi of the binding judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and is primarily based upon discretion exercised by the Court and as such, cannot be followed. 11. The question with regard to competence of the Labour Court to award compensation in such like cases is no more res integra. The Apex Court in Workmen Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (2016) 9 SCC 431 and Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh vs. Employers, (2017) 1 SCC 264 , has dealt with the issue at hand and has proceeded to award compensation to the tune of Rs. 4.00 Lakh to each of the workmen in the latter case, as such, argument advanced by learned Additional Advocate General that no compensation could have been awarded on account of delay in raising the dispute, deserves outright rejection. 12. In the light of aforesaid observations, the Award passed by learned Tribunal calls for no interference by this Court, which is accordingly upheld. The writ petition is dismissed. All pending miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of.